HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, Meenakshi Madan Rai, JJ.
Shaktiman Rai - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Crl. A. No.18 of 2022
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Dying Declaration - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307; Evidence Act Section 32 - The court discussed the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the burden of proof on the prosecution, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The victim was assaulted and later died from his injuries. The appellant was accused based on the victim's alleged dying declaration naming him as the assailant, but the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and lacked corroboration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the appellant and the crime, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of corroborative evidence for the dying declaration.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and the validity of the dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and a dying declaration must be corroborated to be reliable.
Result: The conviction was overturned, and the appellant was acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The victim, a man aged about forty-six years, a Government employee, was found lying on a cornfield, in Zeel, West Sikkim, at around 08.00 a.m., on 12-04-2021, in a critical condition with signs of brutal assault on his person. He held the Appellant responsible for the assault, which allegedly occurred on the night of 11-04-2021. On the morning of 13-04-2021, he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 2 was lodged on 12-04-2021, by PW-2 before the Kaluk PS, informing that his brother was assaulted near the Church, at Zeel, West Sikkim, at around 06.30 p.m. on 11-042021 by the Appellant. FIR No.05 of 2021, dated 12-04-2021 was registered against the Appellant, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC'), which was converted to Section 302 IPC, on the death of the victim. The Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, on examining the Prosecution witnesses and relying largely on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, by the impugned Judgment, dated 29-06-2022, convicted the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, with fine of ? 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only, and a default clause of imprisonment, in Sessions Trial Case No.05 of 2021 (State of Sikkim vs. Shaktiman Rai), on 29-06-2022.
2. On investigation, it transpired that PW-6 the landlord of the house where the deceased was residing, informed his neighbor PW-5 Sumitra Rai, on the morning of 12-04-2021, that the victim had not returned home the previous night, therefore he intended to search for him. He requested her to tend to his cattle in the meanwhile. For that purpose, when PW-5 came walking towards the house of PW-6, she saw the deceased lying naked on the cornfield of PW-6. She called out to PW-6, who reached the place and saw the deceased. PW-6 carried the deceased who was smelling of alcohol, to his room and on his enquiry from the deceased about his absence from home the night before and the reason for his condition, the deceased told him that he had been physically assaulted by the Appellant. PW-6 then informed PW-7 Chandra Lall Limboo, the cousin of the deceased about the incident, who in turn informed his sons PW-3 Suresh Limboo and PW-4 Rikesh Limboo. PWs 3 and 6 also informed PW-2, the Complainant, the younger brother of the deceased. The deceased as per PW-2 was taken to the District Hospital, Namchi, South District, the same morning by him, accompanied by his sisters, PW-3 and one Indra Bahadur Subba, where, on the morning of 1304-2021, he succumbed to his injuries. The deceased told PW-4 that the Appellant with whom he used to drink, had assaulted him.
(i) On his plea of 'not guilty' to the charge framed against the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, by the Learned Trial Court, he claimed trial, thus ten witnesses were examined by the Prosecution, on completion of which the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the 'Cr.P.C.'). Consideration of all evidence on record by the Learned Trial Court culminated in the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence. The Learned Trial Court while convicting the Appellant based its finding on the alleged statement of the deceased made to PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6, implicating the Appellant for the assault. Such a statement the Learned Trial Court opined, was a 'dying declaration' and fell within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, the 'Evidence Act'). The Learned Trial Court was also of the view that a mere lack of motive or enmity between the deceased and the Appellant or the failure of the investigating agency to recover and seize a (murder weapon) if any, would not suffice to reject the entire case of the Prosecution and discard the final words/statement of the deceased, who succumbed to his injuries in less than a day after he nam
The court emphasized that a dying declaration must be corroborated and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial cases.
A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and in any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided indication is positive and definite.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the accused's guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence for a conviction.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The prosecution must conclusively establish guilt through circumstantial evidence, including motive and cause of death, in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must establish clear links and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the reliability of dying declarations is paramount.
The reliability of an eyewitness is paramount, and without corroboration, their testimony cannot solely sustain a conviction in criminal jurisprudence.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and corroborated, emphasizing its legal admissibility in murder cases.
The dying declaration made by the deceased was voluntarily made and in a conscious state of mind, and it was supported by witness testimonies, medical and forensic evidence, leading to the conviction....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.